From: | "Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)" <houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | shveta malik <shveta(dot)malik(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)" <kuroda(dot)hayato(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com>, Nisha Moond <nisha(dot)moond412(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Subject: | RE: Conflict detection for update_deleted in logical replication |
Date: | 2025-08-21 08:39:11 |
Message-ID: | TY4PR01MB16907F378DC0DD2E44EE6EF499432A@TY4PR01MB16907.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com |
Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thursday, August 21, 2025 2:01 PM shveta malik <shveta(dot)malik(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Aug 20, 2025 at 12:12 PM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)
> <houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > I agree. Here is V63 version which implements this approach.
> >
>
> Thank You for the patches.
>
> > The retention status is recorded in the pg_subscription catalog
> > (subretentionactive) to prevent unnecessary retention initiation upon
> > server restarts. The apply worker is responsible for updating this
> > flag based on the retention duration. Meanwhile, the column is set to
> > true when retain_dead_tuples is enabled or when creating a new
> > subscription with retain_dead_tuples enabled, and it is set to false when
> retain_dead_tuples is disabled.
> >
>
> +1 on the idea.
>
> Please find few initial testing feedback:
Thanks for the comments.
>
> 1)
> When it stops, it does not resume until we restart th server. It keeps on waiting
> in wait_for_publisher_status and it never receives one.
>
> 2)
> When we do: alter subscription sub1 set (max_conflict_retention_duration=0);
>
> It does not resume in this scenario too.
> should_resume_retention_immediately() does not return true due to
> wait-status on publisher.
Fixed in the V64 patches.
> 3)
> AlterSubscription():
> * retention will be stopped gain soon in such cases, and
>
> stopped gain --> stopped again
Sorry, I missed this typo in V64, I will fix it in the next version.
Best Regards,
Hou zj
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Mihail Nikalayeu | 2025-08-21 08:43:08 | Re: [BUG?] check_exclusion_or_unique_constraint false negative |
Previous Message | 赵宇鹏 (宇彭) | 2025-08-21 08:32:48 | Re: memory leak in logical WAL sender with pgoutput's cachectx |